On November 7, 2003, a strange new group no one had ever heard of called "Americans for Jobs & Healthcare" was quietly formed and soon thereafter began running a million dollar operation including political ads against then-frontrunner Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The commercials ripped Dean over his positions or past record on gun rights, trade and Medicare growth. But the most inflammatory ad used the visual image of Osama bin Laden as a way to raise questions about Dean's foreign policy credibility. While the spots ran, Americans for Jobs-through its then--spokesman, Robert Gibbs, a former Kerry campaign employee--refused to disclose its donors.
It sucked and it was a low blow. Pardon me if I don't get all excited about Obama's team.
But under the honest accounting rules of pay-as-you-go, Baucus will need to find $750 billion of offsets. Where?
This is exactly the reason why I would not go after full repeal of the AMT right now. Were I Queen of the World I would probably move to index the AMT for inflation to try to bring it back to its intended purpose.
I think that would buy some time to find that $750B in offsets in order to repeal the AMT.
I also submitted a question for Romano taking her to task for using the word "catfight" and recommending she learn how congressional committees work, since House Intel had a term limit that Nancy Pelosi would have had to bend in order to make Jane Harmon chair.
Romano is fond of snark; in a previous life, she wrote The Reliable Source, the Post's gossip column. Which, I guess, makes her qualified to write about politics.
RAHMBO REDUX. OK, this whole business about who's allowed to spike the ball in the end zone gets to last until midnight tonight and then we all hold hands and sing together. ... As recently as the summer of 2005, when I was working on a piece for The Boston Globe Magazine about Howard Dean's chairmanship of the DNC, it was a ludicrously open secret that Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC believed that a nationwide strategy of the kind Dean was proposing likely would prove not only futile, but catastrophic, and a lot of them were already measuring the space on the wall where they'd hang the Doctor's head. They believed neither in the strategy nor, especially, in the guy pushing it, and any of them who says they did is simply dealing in a barefaced non-fact. There's no shame in admitting that other people saw an opportunity before you did. Nobody denies that the late money was valuable, but Emanuel can best be said to have produced a bumper crop out of ground that somebody else plowed.
It's impossible to quantify the impact the 50-state strategy had on Tuesday's victory but I am dead certain of one thing: it couldn't have happened without Howard Dean.
I live in NoVa and the polling place is literally at the end of my street. I arrived at 5:50 a.m. and was 18th in line. A volunteer told me people started lining up at 5:30 a.m. By the time the poll opened at 6:00, another 10-15 people were behind me.
Once inside, it was quick and easy. I voted probably waited not 5 minutes to vote. My precinct uses WINvote machines so we had no problems with candidates' names truncating. I have had no problems with using the machines in the past. As I left, there was a good crowd inside waiting to vote before heading off to work.
I really hope this bodes well for the Democrats. A strong turnout is what the Republicans are most afraid of.
I don't think the 'freshness date' aspect is as much of a problem as you think. Nixon won the Presidency in 1968 when he'd been out of office for eight years; Reagan in 1980 had been out of office for six.
On the contrary, I think it matters even more now. It's very easy for voters to ask, well what have you done lately?
A term as Senator, beginning in January 2007 (or 2009, for that matter) would have buffed his credentials in time for 2012, when he will be 57.
Agreed--it would have been such a resume booster for him had he more legislative experience behind him. But on the other hand, you have the challenge of going from the Senate to the White House, which only 2 senators have ever done.
I disagree with your point about Allen's credibility. Allen only won the governorship when allegations about Mary Sue Terry's sexuality were called into question--he didn't win because he was the better candidate, he won by default. (There was no connection proven between Allen's campaign & the allegations but who knows?) Allen opposed the state holiday for Dr. King, and it was originally attached to Lee-Jackson Day until Gilmore separated it. He endorsed Oliver North. In 1995, 1996, and 1997, Allen proclaimed April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.
In short, I have no clue why he won except by playing to the more rural parts of the state and by the Democrats not putting up a good opponent. Hell, he ran for senate against Chuck Robb, who had plenty of personal issues of his own. But he sure didn't win on integrity.
That has always been my position. Mark Warner was never viable as a presidential candidate--you can't run for president in 2007-08 when your major accomplishments took place between 2001-2005. The freshness date has expired.
And if Warner were Allen's opponent right now, Virginia would be a near-certain Dem pickup, instead of still a bit of a longshot.
I agree but now that he's going to be helping out Webb, it seems that the odds have gotten a bit better.